I found an interesting site that specifically mentions some of the arguments against the moon hoax idea that are presented on this site (badastronomy.com). http://www.geocities.com/maxim_recoil/moon.html It is pretty good, shows examples of pictures that don't fit so easily into the explanations that the hoax debunkers tend to give. For example, everyone seems to have an explanation for why you have the identical mountains in the background in pictures that were taken in different locations. But no one seems to mention why there are photos with different mountain angles showing in the background but the foreground is roughly the same. If the mountains are as large and distant as NASA and hoax debunkers claim then how could we get a different view of them in the distance without hardly moving at all? That site also shows a picture with a missing cross hair that can't be explained by the classic "bright white part bleeding over" explanation. Anyway, the site makes some interesting points IMO and I'm interested to see what other people in this forum have to say about it.

Ok, that site is decent. I do have a question though, which unfortunately goes right against that site: Assuming they say the module was "inserted" into the image, where is the reflection from the moon on the silvery sides of the module coming from? Another "stage effect" ? I would hate to defend something that I'm not familiar with but I'll attempt to use common sense, which is rarely ever used by government-based agencies. The lack of a crosshair in some images could simply be from airbrushing them out since they were in the way of glorious images. Sounds stupid doesn't it? A photographer or digital image editor might think differently and feel the importance to edit out such things. I'm just saying! Don't think that I'm coming to this conclusion, it's simply an idea.

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

Nothing new there. Just the same old ignorance of perspective, parallax, optics, etc.

__________________
~AstroMike

Exactly. Take a CLOSER look at the two mountains-in-the-background shots for 10075727.htm and 10075728.htm. At first there DOES seem to be a terribly cock-up going on. But take a CLOSER look at the very middle valley area between the two mountains. There is an angular difference. The one on the right seems to have been taken from a position to the right of the first one. There is a light-coloured slope to the right of each shot. The one on the right is more apparent because first of all, there's more of it in the shot, and secondly, the angle has changed. The shot on the right was likely taken many meters away to the right of the first shot. You can even see how the light-coloured slope on the far right in the right image is obscuring the view of the mountain behind it moreso than in the first image. Why aren't the hoaxters paying more attention to detail? Or do they hate admitting to being wrong after all the work they put into trying to dispute the landing? Of course, this is just my opinion. I'll admit to being wrong.

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

Jest,

The pictures you are talking about 10075727.htm and 10075728.htm were not in dispute by the site. He said he agreed with the explanation given for those 2 photos. It is the photos below that have an opposite effect from those 2 that he was asking about.

Ok then I disagree with what's said about the images "below" as indicated on that site. Considering the numerous hikes I have been on, and the photos taken, things in the distance tend to trick the mind. I'd post examples of images taken on hikes but these images are at home, on film. No scanner. Oh wait now I'm starting to sound like a hoaxter.. no proof [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

[quote]
On 2002-11-21 13:48, jest wrote:
How does that old saying go...the devil is in the details. If they had to examine their own beliefs too closely, they would start to unravel.

Usually (from what I've seen) these type of pages don't attack anyone in particular, but this one personally attacks Bad Astronomy and Redzero. Are there other web sites that are so "personal" in their attacks? (I mean besides that crazy "zeta lady" Linda).

I see.

This site is a joke. We have been over this ground time and time again. This guy "reads" photos almost as well as Jack White. Do we need to debunk this step by step once again?

Well said. An excellent point by point analysis.

It is the usual hoaxer garbage and deception. Unlike an HB, I'll actually you examples. The first photograph that is shown is from the Apollo 14 mission and shows a distant view of the LM and Alan Shepard. The claim is that "His shadow seems to have come up among the missing."

If you look closely at the photograph, his shadow is there, but if you look at a good scan of the photograph like,

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...14-68-9487.jpg

you'll see it is there.

Then there are the two photographs of the Apollo 17 LM. If the author had really examined the photographs he would have seen that in

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20507.jpg

the picture is from the front of the craft, while in

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20508.jpg

The picture is from the side of the craft. Don't believe, look at the position of the white circle. Since it is obvious that the camera has moved about 45 degree relative to the position of the LM, I expect to see the background change. If it didn't well then there is a hoax. Again very deceptive.

The questions that I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject than myself could answer concerning the points brought up at http://www.geocities.com/maxim_recoil/moon.html are as follows:
1: Why in the first photo is Allan Shepard not casting a heavy dark shadow, while the rocks and the lander are?
2: Why the severe angle of shadow intersection despite the level appearing ground?
3: Why the missing crosshair over the CM? The bright white part required for the bleed over effect doesn't seem to be an issue in this particular photo. (Do you all agree with Jest's theory that the crosshair may have been airbrushed out because it was obscuring the image of the CM?)
4: Why the 2 opposite effects of same foreground, different background as compared to same background different foreground? to explain one effect disputes the other effect it seems.
5: Why the opposite effects of lighting? One astronaut in the shadow of the lander is lit up. The other is engulfed in darkness. If the moon's surface refection provides the lighting infill for the top astronaut, why did it not also infill the bottom astronaut with light?

I am not trying to be combative here. I would just be interested to know the answers to these questions.

As for his discussion on how much light the lunar surface reflects to backfill shadows he totally ignores the other two factors involved in how much the camera picks up. Exposure settings and the reflective properties of the objects in the photos.

He is guilty of exactly what he accuses BA and other sites of - utilizing a small data base of specific photos to make his point. Unfortunately, what he doesn't realize is that for every "anomalous" photo that "proves" the hoax picture we can find hundreds that support the record.

Some of these have been answered above – I’ve given a partial answer to #5 in my last post – exposure and reflective properties of the object must be considered as well as lunar surface reflectivity.

For a lot of your other questions you need to look at high res scans of these photos. See JRKellers post (11/21 – 14:53) to find the high res scan of Alan Shepard. He also addressed the two photos of the Apollo 17 LM – Contrary to the authors claims the photographer moved quite a distance to photograph the LM at significantly different angles.

For the other photos it is clear (to me at least) that the camera movement is a lot more than a few feet. I’d have to go to the ALSJ to see when the two photos at station 8 were taken. Look at the angle of the flag in the remaining two photos, again the photographs were taken from significantly different places.

It is really difficult to find better versions of his pictures because he doesn't use the standard photo numbers. BTW - anyone know where we can fins a high-res scan of AS-16-113-18282 (CM with missing cross hair) -I couldn't find it on Kipp Teague's site.

[Edit to add last paragraph]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: spacedout on 2002-11-21 15:37 ]</font>

That's actually a point I wanted to make later but decided it would be ignored anyway. Outside of the shot where you see the plaque backlit and quite visible even though it's in a shadow, there is likely a rock, a hill, or something quite prominent on the Moon being lit by sunlight, which of course would be reflecting back on the lander. This is not a fact. But the next your car is parked beside say, a tree, during a nice hot summer day (let's not be standing outside in the winter cold trying to do this because there's no reason to get frostbite!), and the sun is shining from behind that tree, notice how the shady side of the tree (the dark side, if you will) is backlit by a window from the car. This is basically the same effect, except the tree would be a moon lander, the car would be something bright in the near distance such as a boulder or hill, and of course the Sun would be the Sun as per usual. Why is this hard to understand? Well, apart from me being a very confusing person a lot of the time [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

If you look at a decent scan of that picture, the crosshair is easily seen.

lo res

high res

Looks like the guy who made this page fudged a little.



Does anybody have the ALSJ number for that first Alan Shepard pic?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-11-21 15:45 ]</font>

Actually I think I can see the crosshair in the low-res shot as well. Interesting.

[addition made after trying something]

3 minutes in Photoshop and I made the main crosshair disappear at 12 o'clock from the position of the module in the image, as well as the crosshair which appears right over top of the module, "blocking" it. Again, that's just me. I like doing image manipulations...

_________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jest on 2002-11-21 15:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jest on 2002-11-21 15:57 ]</font>

AS14-68-9487

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-11-21 15:49 ]</font>

Here are some stars from space.

http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gall...s72-36972.html

Again very poor research.

How can you say the ground appears level?

It is plainly apparent that the ground is sloping away.

However, let's assume for a moment that the ground is level. How would those converging shadows have been formed?

Geez, that site isn't very well done at all.



That first Alan Shepard picture is terribly misleading. Here is a link to a better scan. In it you plainly see that Shepard's shadow is at least partially obscured by the terrain.

But let's again assume for a moment that there is a complete, unobscured shadow there, and it is much lighter that the rest of the scene. What would cause that? Separate lighting?

I would say the ground where he is standing is probably sloped away from the camera. The shadow is on the far side of the slope. This may not the answer, but it makes more sense than the picture being faked.

The ground with the rocks is clearly not level. Look at the picture: they are on a slight ridge. Besdiers, objects closeby will cast shadows in different directions from far objects due to perspective.

The usual image of that shot was, I believe, cleaned up by a magazine for printing. As has been shown, the original image has the crosshair in it.

Your other questions have already been answered here.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-11-21 16:10 ]</font>

Nice try with the website, it was a (reasonably) good effort.



(all that good condescension gone to waste)

Damn, you guys are right about that picture with the crosshair that seems to be missing. It is amazing the difference a high resolution picture can make. I didn't even think it was the same picture at first until I compared the photo ID's and then I realized it was just oriented differently. Thanks to whoever found that hi-res picture.

cigarette_repairman: I have to say that you are probably the most well behaved and polite hoax believer i have seen on this site. You portray your arguments without alot of emotion and are not a troll. We are MUCH more likely to respond to you in the way you are acting now than if you start to yell at us. So keep up what you are doing and you will get alot of ears (and eyes) to listen to your arguments. Good Luck [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

P.S. To make your arguments believeable, have sources available upon request or post them with your posts.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

You are most welcome.

I think it's just that the photo he found is a low-resolution jpeg. I went to the version of the photo he references at the JSC website, and it has the same problem.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hurm... I got caught by this too. I was about to post to the effect of "I don't think thats the same picture..." I am no HB but I was curious what would cause the fiducials to not be seen when it was NOT an obvious case of dark on light bleed out. Now I know better.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Waarthog on 2002-11-21 17:24 ]</font>

Interesting site. I see it's been pretty much dismantled here already. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

In the crosshair argument this guy also makes one glaring omission. Sure, crosshairs over white objects can bleed out, but that's not the only way they can disappear. Crosshairs over dark objects are also going to be hard to spot. Black on black just doesn't stand out too well. And the crosshair on the CM photo is at least partially that exact same black-on-black effect. Combine it with the low resolution and background details, and it's easy to see why it's hard to spot. Frankly though, I think he was way off base to say it wasn't there at all, because it was faintly visible to me even in the lo-res shot he provides.

To address this site on a higher level though, I will give him credit for bringing up new arguments, and accepting the fact that some of the older ones are not very good, like the flag-waving one. But what irritates me the most about this is the implied assertion that, just because a particular photo/anomaly/whatnot has not yet been debunked, that it means it cannot be debunked, or that the debunkers are not being honest in their efforts. He seems to be trying to discredit BadAstronomy and RedZero for not having all the answers out on the table from the very beginning, for not addressing questions before they are even asked. This seems very unfair to me.

He doesn't seem to understand that the points made on pages like these are simply examples. They are answers given to the most commonly-asked questions and descriptions of general concepts that are often found to be wrong in hoax arguments. They are not meant to be all-encompassing point-by-point rebuttals of every claim that could be made, but rather illustrations of the common misconceptions of most hoax claims, and the ease with which they can be explained. They are meant to be used as a starting point for more research and critical thinking on the part of the reader when he or she encounters new claims, not spoon-fed answers to everything under the sun.

I think this thread is a good illustration that, if they are given an opportunity, the people here can answer clearly just about any question the hoax proponents can raise, and often with more detail and diligence than the questioners themselves show. But we shouldn't have to answer everything. The BA/Redzero/et-al have provided the tools. The answers are there for anyone to find if they just use them.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Ok, here's a partial answer to the intersecting shadows photo.

First of all, I do not agree with the lines that have been drawn on the example photo. Just look at it:

The line on the right is drawn exactly horizontal, but the shadow of the rocks above it are really more like 45&deg; or even steeper. This is a bit of misdirection that is very common among hoax proponents. As long as the line is not too far off, they can hope nobody will notice the fudging they did.

Second, this is a directly down-sun photograph. When you shoot a photo with the sun behind you, then all shadows are going to appear to converge somewhere in front of you. This is the common receding railroad-track perspective.

Third, the ground does not appear level to me at all. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the astronaut's shadow is pointing straight into a shallow depression, and that the slopes of it run up and away on both sides of the shadow. It's a little more obvious in a larger version: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...1/20130773.jpg (Does anyone know of hi-res versions of these shots?) Shadows on slopes like that would seem to converge more sharply than on level ground.

Finally, there might also be some effects from the camera itself. I'm not too sure, but the photo looks a bit fish-eyed to me. Can someone familiar with the photography equipment fill us in here?

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere